The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About20221065 500 Union Longfellows Renovations Patrick Cogan Determination Request 2021-08-21TFf LAW OFFICES OF Libby Coren, M. ELIZABETH CORENO,ESQ. P.C. liby@coGeronaw.com August 4, 2021 Patrick Cogan, Building Inspector City of Saratoga Springs Building Department 474 Broadway Saratoga Springs, New York 12866 Re: 500 Union Avenue — Zoning Interpretation Proposed redevelopment of Longfellow's Dear Patrick: Our office represents 513 Broadway, LLC which currently has an option to purchase 500 Union Avenue in the City of Saratoga Springs ("City"), commonly known as "Longfellow's." The potential buyer largely seeks to continue the current operational use as a hotel and restaurant facility while making a set of remodeling changes to the one of the buildings and the 2001 site plan approval. In order to properly evaluate the permitted use of the site and the land use approval process applicable from the City Zoning Ordinance, the proposed buyer and the current owner (copied here) seek an interpretation from you as it relates to the plans for the future use and redevelopment of the site. Understanding that your interpretation is limited to the information we share in this request, we are providing you all available uses, schematic design, anticipated site changes, historical documents and prior approvals so that a determination can be properly made by your office. A. Background As you know, Longfellow's has a long history in the City as a banquet and hotel facility dating back to its original retail use known as "The Canterbury." In 1982, the City passed one of its first specialty zoning enactments, the Interlaken Planned Unit Development district ("PUD") of which the Canterbury was a part. The original zoning contemplated zone AA which permitted a 360-seat restaurant, 2000 square foot grocery, 10,000 square foot office renovation, 8250 square feet of new office and commercial space, a 50-room inn, and 231 parking spaces. (See Exhibit A for the 1982 zoning legislation and map). In 1998, plans for the renovations into Longfellow's began with the application for site plan review of a new building on the southern portion of the site for hotel rooms. The application was brought by one of the current owners and operators of Longfellow's, Steve Sullivan, and the architect, George Olsen. C. Michael Ingersoll of The LA Group presented the plans to the City Planning Board on April 1, 1998 and indicated that it was the intent to create the "inn" portion of the site in addition to the existing restaurant facilities. The site proposal included 300 indoor seats, a maximum of 50 outdoor seats (courtyard), an 18,720 square foot restaurant, no more retail, and no more office space. The agenda notes from the City's Planning Director, Geoff Bomemann, indicate that he had some evidence of a 1984 revision to the PUD 63 Putnam Street, Suite 202 Saratoga Springs, New York 12866 (518)682-6901 Cogan, Patrick August 4, 2021 Page 2 of 10 which permitted larger acreages and broader uses for the site (copy of the Agenda Notes from 4/1/98 are attached as Exhibit B). The Agenda Notes also inquired whether the Planning Board could "trade uses" (page 9) and the ultimate decision by the Board indicates that they did. Furthermore, Mr. Olson indicated that he received a zoning interpretation letter that the proposal was zoning compliant with the intent of the PUD and the Planning Board agreed. (copy of the 4/l/98 minutes is attached as Exhibit Q. All parties acknowledged that the site was "pre-existing non -conforming" even before the 1982 zoning and the PUD did not include area and bulk restrictions of any kind. However, the proposal did provide for a voluntary buffer of 50 feet on the south and 30 feet on the west. The Board further provided that the 10 ft front yard setback and 25 feet from the south property line was sufficient for parking, and that the parking counts of 150 spaces were not to be included for outdoor seating. The site plan was unanimously approved. In November of 2001, the Longfellow's project returned to the Planning Board to modify its 1998 site plan for the development of a Phase II which called for (1) 75 additional, indoor restaurant seats or a total of 360 seats, (2) 50 rooms, (3) a connecting bridge between the buildings 14 feet in height to allow vehicle passage under, and (4) slope analysis for construction along the northwest portion of the parcel (copy of the December 2001 Agenda Notes attached as Exhibit D). At the December 2001 Planning Board meeting, Mr. Ingersoll stated that the application was subject to site plan review and to architectural review by the Design Review Commission (a copy of the December 2001 Planning Board minutes is attached as Exhibit E). The proposal also contained small business meeting rooms, ballroom, restaurant and the additional rooms for the inn for a total of 50. Once again, it was noted that the zoning did not contain any area or bulk restrictions but was limited by the 1998 site plan requirements which were to be maintained. The Planning Board voted unanimously to the site plan modifications and revised uses in 2001. B. Current Proposal The potential buyer has identified and executed a confidential MOU with a national boutique hotel and conference center operator ("Operator") for the redevelopment of the Longfellow's site. In order to analyze the differences between the 2001 approved site plan and the Operator's plans for the site, certain comparisons were made using the thresholds and limitations from the existing SEQRA and land use approval records to determine the level of conformance. Below is a chart of the relevant metrics of the existing site and the proposed program plan: Comparison Breakdown Existing Site Difference Building Footprint (SF) Conditioned Space Only 28,799 29,351 552 GSF - Conditioned Space Only 62,511 78,840 16,329 No. of Seats 339 337 -2 No. of Hotel Rooms 50 86 36 No. of Full Time Employees 1 40 1 40 1 0 Law Office of A Elizabeth Coreno, Esq. P.G. 63 Putnam Street, Suite 202 Saratoga Springs, New York 12866 (518)421-1366 Cogan, Patrick August 4, 2021 Page 3 of 10 Attached is a sketch plan layout of the existing site plan with an overlay of the proposed site (see Exhibit F). It is notable that while the gross square footage of the hotel space is larger, the change to the building footprint is only 552 square feet. The relativity of the GSF to the consistent footprint has been achieved predominantly through the construction of the previously contemplated connector bridge, a series of architectural spacing redesign elements allowing for more efficient building utilization and by bringing all elements of the fagade into alignment with the original northern barn for more coherence. The historical northern barn is intended to remain completely intact as demonstrated by the ivory color on the attached sketch plan, along with the current inn. The structural footprint removals indicated in red on the attached plan include (1) the grease trap and kitchen hood area facing 9P and (2) the central portion of the indoor ballroom which will be turned into an outdoor courtyard. A large portion of the building footprint of the new barn (south barn) will remain largely the same with three notable changes: (1) a veranda to run the length of the southern wall of the entrance; (2) the previously mentioned movement of the connector building closer to 9P and (3) the connection bridge from the conference center to the rear hotel rooms (light blue). There are some parking space relocation proposed but it is (1) in keeping with the site plan restrictions currently in place and (2) maintaining the current number of guest parking while adding seven stacked employee spaces at the rear of the property. C. Procedure for Land Use Review In light of the long history on the site and the approved site plan, the applicant is requesting an interpretation concerning the uses proposed and the required City land use approvals which would be required for the redevelopment proposal. The attached sketch plan (Exhibit F) indicates that the uses are lodging, restaurant, lounge, ballroom, meeting rooms, pool, and fitness center. All of these uses were contemplated and/or previously approved in a combination of PUD language, prior zoning interpretations, and permitted under prior Planning Board approvals. Our request is a determination that, from a zoning perspective, the redevelopment proposal is consistent with the uses contemplated under the intent of the zoning and the existing site utilization. As it relates to the land use approvals and process, the applicant is requesting an interpretation that a modification of the 2001 site plan is required, along with the appropriate SEQRA review, to determine the significance (if any) of the proposed changes from both an environmental and site plan perspective. The applicant is also requesting that it return to the Design Review Commission for architectural review as is consistent with the 2001 process in the City. Thank you for taking the time to review this letter and its attachments for the requested interpretation and determination. Please let me know if there are any questions I can answer or additional information I can provide in order to facilitate your review. Law Office of M. Elizabeth Coreno, Esq. P.C. 63 Putnam Street, Suite 202 Saratoga Springs, New York 12866 (518) 421-1366 Cogan, Patrick August 4, 2021 Page 4 of 10 Sincerely, M. Elizabeth Coreno MEC/ cc: Steve Sullivan Larry Novik Vince DeLeonardis, Esq. Law Office of M. Elizabeth Coreno, Esq. P.C. 63 Putnam Street, Suite 202 Saratoga Springs, New York 12866 (518)421-1366 Cogan, Patrick August 4, 2021 Page 5 of 10 EXHIBIT A 1982 Interlaken PUD and Map Law Office of M. Elizabeth Coreno, Esq. P.C. 63 Putnam Street, Suite 202 Saratoga Springs, New York 12866 (518) 421-1366 iCT-16-2001 04:33 PM OLSEN ASSOCIATES 519 583 9122 -r/Tr'�� -rV♦ter... r. .ram-.♦�rrFr�.. :sMoTTo3 uame Agazeq ST E86Z 5 ATnr uo papuaui2 sE sbuTadS sE pap � � e504e=VS ;o AITO qqj ;o dew buzuoZ aq4 •anogv aq4 uo p9988 __ rr_r___-----rW-- buixi�ed spa-0 LT ' AGjTg agq, qv 4uvsnEgs9a seas 0ST '=a�uao aouasa;uoa-Tagoq moon-01t :wv2boad 9L'£t 99 •bu- Xapd aVO -TEZ 'uul W00a-05 saovds T eT0aaunuoo pue aoT;;a Mau 3o - a• S O S Z 8 �snq�a�up, aq� �p g2tiax 90T;;0 •3'9 000'OL pine XaBoOlb -a-5 OOOZ jque.znvg992 leas-09E :`,up.zboard £L"9 Vv ------- - - oW ZL - - - - - - ------ -w------r--r-- ZL' St Lip' LOT 0' L ---- LS'Z -r-r-----------r+ 8£' LL --w------_r----- L5' V6t TVt-4uapisa-ff . 3 . Z salfo Ei SUITZ)v vaav :)X/na ' sna ov/ncl xitis as S8 ov vativ salffo ' SZIMn vauv M' o "�i BJtidS 12r1 S90,99 d3SS0 valdv Q�d'p2t Mao -r+r----•---r--_r,rr-r--------r-r_-___-w--� �N SS02i9 :sMotto3 sE pus Aapunims asn pupT aq4 uo uMogs " aq ttpgs txaeT�ralul log saT4Tsuap asn PUTT aqq •uort�nTosa� sTgq ;o gard apsm uAxvmwns asn puv7„ pup :,gSL1 puVri : ueTd Idaouo0„ uo uMogs ATTEot3Toads saM 9e 'Z86t '8 =Qniga3 pa4vp u9xpTx84u1 ;o uptd 4daouoo aq4 g4TA aouepzooap uI (-Z •abuQgo buzuoZ pies buT44opp ut uoZ4op 94T so3 STSvq t sE TTouno0 AgTO auq 3o g7odas Z86T 'Z aunt+ SIT ui pzEoa buTuuvTa aq4 3o sbutpuT3 aq4 sgdopv ('t Aga.zau T Touno' t Aq -ra aqs . S T .0 eT n uo oouEuipsO pips 6uT4dop2 uT pasn Z 8 6 TTounoo AgTJ aqq sTs2g aq4 'spaooas sIT UT g1103 4as 04 pue aouEu'rpio p-c2s uT pauTpquoo 20a20TQotgdaarbodlC4 c� al 4oazsoo 04 uoTgop buTAOTTo3 aq4 saXv4 Agaaaq TTnuno0 A470 aq4 'saaop S t Z AL ajeurrxoaddE 30 uaXeT.zajur sE uMouX juau:doT anaa 4TuD pauusTd a off. 4*Ti4sta XMUV..2asu00 W02; S9Tavpunoq 4OT21STp UT abuEgo 3qq g0913a=.o4 6814 buzuoZ aqI butpuauie Aq "buzuoZ., p9T4TIua fX20A MBN 'sbuTads e504eavS 30 A4TO sq4 30 apo0 auk 30 5£T =9dpg0 puautp j4 aouEuYpacp use 6uT4d0pg uI t SPECIAL REGULATIONS: wcLwraD 70 9ETvweH9 Par AREA3 AND NT. CIF REwoallnAt BTi1vCTwsa. SINGLE FAMILY ZONE e 6 D M111. LOT r1R19A 13.1100 S/. .MIN. O LT WIDTH 100 FT PAT NOW) PAIN. FIRST PLOGR AKA M►00 Y MAP{. NaLdNONT. S.S ►10P►E► 13A F T.1 AAx 4aLOWC CoilERAO[ SOUL MAN, SETUACK IKOLFRCMENTS. FRONT VAPID 30 FT. 1//1MK) 0PMn PI[AR VAPID 20 FT. aIm VARD 6 FT_ I I a F T. TOrAu MPH. ACCESSORY aALCWO SSTCACNB 13 RT. IFM F['N i QOH1.0.0 uN1 S FT FROM SKW UNC MLt.T -PAM1LY I CONDO UNITS 1 ZONE O F F PAW. FLOOR AMA too SF. WN. MIDI" S[r►ACw >OFT. JwOM wOw1 MIN. DISTANOL Ocrwec" SO K. oLFLONIG► hock. PAPIRING 1.9 EIMC1'► r WIT MAl PYILOINO NT. M STOP1193 /SOFT.) TOWNHOUSES ZONE C MAN. I ST FLOM ARIA ►00 up. LO T OT ARCA V'soo Si. PIEAR VAPID, 00 FT. (FROM ADA ►.LI \ 190 FT. (FROM CAESC►NT AVC.1 \ LAKE LONELY r_4- L INTEIVLAKEN LAND L10C auMM^r1Y COMwvoaoN OOMPANNO THE 190t 9ASAKI PLAN WITH THU 11EVISED INTIUM AKEN PLAN D^TFD AUO. 11. 1009 COMPILED OT THE CNVIRONMEINTAL DESIGN ►1 ArNCRSHIP ZONE M tl a MIITB ORO¢: ARC^ DENSITY mu.-a.A. aA ; ISO. 19 54.76 3.4 2.28 B 66.87 61.12 2.3 3.13 C = 40.52 30.44 2.8 3.15 D • 0.76 9.56 .68 .73 E i ! 22.23 19.61 TOTALS I 194.57183.57 .a � INTERLAKEN CONCEPT PLAN a; 1.9 2.85 � r �.• �- , A 2.57 2.72 Q OFIM,�i�SS:f Dn NOTWO: "0114WGFITSRLAKCN DEVIELOPMCNT ,-'I - „' �•!� , r M GROSS A1tAS AS COLIFILEO Or C.O.►. ^O E RAGED / • _ - ' �' :': %: CN AN ACTT. n .0 wwI'.r COMVL.ETED 0T PHASE 3 f - ` w,r r E FISH CHEEK 3 ��H98E ?�.� � !' � LLa+a rTPE oI owcwNa Wns uocAnaN � V �` PHASE 1 �i~'�1ne oar zaAr• a��1FFts NQOMIpwrs ar.s► �� u1R1111I10swTa aa.ec PHASE 2 1F wn NeeNeown aDa► ! 1 PHASE 3 NTA00WR sOK. +A Q W zZ FWfWG I AIR^ IOTA/. NO OENLTV TYPE OF D1Y1LW0 tM73 n O♦TQ IwGtN OR a.tA D.Yr ICIt waa1APP►r C01100 II11r► Kwrlawt � O �` .z"1�w.t'IE-11 F"R"O ¢4.76 125 2.20 725 MLm•1�IMr O .:d ZONE 0 ZONE C ZONE o NNK 1./» t►R.Io1�a 38.44 ` 7 21 3.15 O O /21 ZONE E w1PM1./►woIaPllwa P� owe 7 73 7 0 0 TDr,LS �,83.¢1 Epp 1 2.72 1 722 1 1132 121 i ZONE AA O'O¢ �oPR Iw�+I.aa�q,�r M.. Inoosv Flu r�rw"p'0y.!p%�afGipM�FvwYlJ�www7pAuraR'°'s ea...ewe�.► arAOl� . Z0141E66 1-76 �RrRLf�„�►1UjM/11PPp �/7��MNMw�AOMY.f �., 11�0111�L �APKA t09.=! Aa"* IwP.rAF N+N�sw•wwL jz+.flyvw ••. i►YOia �M01 wT OM Mf ST p1 ',, �T•r`;• XF1 Cogan, Patrick August 4, 2021 Page 6 of 10 EXHIBIT B Planning Board Agenda Notes — 04/01 /98 Law Office of M. Elizabeth Coreno, Esq. P.C. 63 Putnam Street, Suite 202 Saratoga Springs, New York 12866 (518) 421-1366 - COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE: - DPS comments: "Fire Department: Please note previous concerns. Also this access configuration is bound to be somewhat compromised by heavy snowfall. It is not unusual for these vehicle access roads to be reduced by'half during normal winter plowing. I recommend snow removal. Police Department: Concern with increased traffic for drop-off/pick-up of children. - How. many children per day,:,, :.. plus other cars at medical offices? Traffic Maintenance: Same as Police*Department concerns.." - DPW comments: "It must be made clear that the city is not responsible for stormwater'detention basin. My question is after all the lots are sold who is responsible? Need to know water usage to establish tapping fee." - Project Review Status (as of 3/27/98): - Amount of initial escrow account: $500.00 - Total staff charges to date: $ - Current balance: $ - Application fee of $200 has been paid. - SEQR determination (negative declaration?) - Action on site plan amendment? 5.. 9 8.13 INTERLAKEN PUD - ZONE A.A, - LONGFELLOWS RESTAURANT : (50 0 Union Avenue) - Application for PUD site plan review for 18 lodging units in Zone AA of the Interlaken Planned Unit Development -District. - POLICY ISSUES: - Review of overall plan for the site: - Original PUD documents indicate the 6.73 acre Zone AA could be developed into 165 seat restaurant and lounge of approximately 15,000 square feet, 54 room Inn of approximately 25,000 square feet, 61000 sq ft. of neighborhood retail and 6,000 sq. ft. for office and retail use, parking for 230 cars. - Boundaries of the PUD in this area appear to have been revised without City Council action. Size of site has grown from 6.73 acres to 9.7 acres. - Clarify if there are two maps (as shown on plans) or one (as shown on tax map). - Applicantls master plan'appears to call for a 50 room Inn (not 54 rooms), an 18,720 sq. ft. restaurant with 300 seats (not a 15,000 sq. ft. restaurant with 165 seats), total parking for 150 cars (not 230 spaces), no retail and no offices. 8 - When did the number of seats in the restaurant increase? Should outside seating be allowed. If so, how many seats? There may have been some understanding of revisions made in 1984 that could have changed PUD boundary and permitted uses to: "360 seat restaurant, 2,000 sq. ft. grocery, 10,000 sq. ft. office rehab at the Canterbury, 8,250: sq. ft. of new office and commercial space, 50- room Inn and 231 car parking." - Are the currently proposed changes acceptable or does the applicant have to go back- before- the City Council to amend the original ('documents"? Does the Planning Board have. the authority to do some "trading" of uses? Should more research be done on the history of presentations to the City Council? Does Board want to review the layout of the overall plan now? Does it want the overall plan to be part of the approval package? - Is it safe/desirable to build on steep slopes? Area and bulk standards: - Original PUD documents did not have any setback or height requirements for zone AA. Does the Board want to establish some? - Was there a NYS DOT taking of extra right- of-way in front of this property since 19827 Building currently has front yard setback of 3.6 feet. - Current parking is about 25 feet from front property line. Applicant proposes 10 foot Parking: front yard parking. Is this acceptable? - Does parking demand include outside seating? - Is proposed parking layout acceptable? (Setbacks, etc.) Is 12 ft. width of proposed turnaround on north side of building acceptable? It does not allow a parked car (leading or registering at the Inn) to be passed. Should there be any handicapped parking near the north entrance for the Inn? - Clarify if existing gravel area in front of building needs to be kept for emergency. vehicles? Is it too close to the structure? Has applicant discussed these issues with the Fire Department? - Water: - Existing structure appears to be connected to Interlaken Water System via an unidentified sized main. Location of this service is not shown. 9 - Is there adequate pressure and- volume in this existing service to provide fire protection to this site? - What is the fire flow requirements of the structure? - Should this facility be directly serviced by City water, which is now across the street? - Should on -site hydrants be provided? Portions of the building are more than 400 feet from the existing city system fire hydrant at corner of::.: s Union Ave/Dyer Switch Road. - Drainage: - Proposed on site drywells are proposed to be tied lined together. Is this acceptable? - No all of the propose drywells have point discharge overflows? Is this acceptable? - Are proposed discharges in the middle of the bank slope acceptable? - Clarify how roof drainage will be handled. - Does any of the parking lot along the western or northern side of building need curbing to prevent runoff down to slope? - Clarify how driveway entrance is to be adequately drained? - Lighting: - Applicant proposes to keep existing three light poles in the parking lot and small, light posts along the entrance driveway. Is the design of these acceptable? - Clarify how parking on west and northern side of structure will be lite? - Landscaping: - Is there adequate planting along the Union Avenue frontage. Sidewalks: - Should there be a sidewalk from the restaurant door to intersection of Union Avenue and Dyer Switch Road? to Interlaken Zone A residences? Traffic impacts: - Should applicant participate in NYS DOT's traffic mitigation fee program 18 new room? for additional seating? Recently all other Interlaken projects (zone C and BB) have participated. - Phasing plan: - Clarify action in proposed construction phases: - Phase 1: - Rehab 18 rooms for Inn. - Pave 47 parking spaces. - Pave drive immediately to the south west and north of building. - Revise emergency access on east side of building. 10 - Phase lA: - Pave parking spaces. - Pave entrance drive. - Install outdoor deck and seating. Clarify why all the parking lot grading and drainage can't be done in first phase? - Should entrance drive be in the first phase? - Clarify why all the plantings can't be done in the first phase? - How much time does applicant need to complete phase 1 and phase IA? (Shouldn't these be labeled lA and 1B?) - Is certificated of occupancy for 18 room Inn tied to phase 1 approvals? - Cost estimate for letter of credit = $14,884 for phase 1 and $13,259 for phase 2. - City Engineer's recommends some revisions. - Expiration date for phase IA? - Expiration date for phase 1B? TECHNICAL ISSUES: Add postal address (1500 Union Avenue). - Document handicapped access to building. - Revise tax map parcel data. - Provide correct source for topographic data. Revise storkwater management plan as per City Engineer's comments. - Provide details on riprapping:for drainage outfall. - Revise sanitary sewer manhole cover for new grades in parking lot. - Show size and location of all existing water mains and values. Add erosion control measure for outfall piping. - Add note that new driveway entrances.require NYS DOT permit. - COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE: - DPS comments: "Concerned with water pressure and supply for fire protection." - DPW comments: "It is my belief that this project can not be serviced by Interlaken Water system. only alternative is that project be connect to city water." - County Planning Board referral: "No significant countywide or intercommunity impact." - Project Review Status (as of 3/27/98): - Amount of initial escrow account: $500.00 - Total staff charges to date: $ - Current balance: $ 11 --Application fee of $300.has been paid. - SEQR determination (negative declaration?) - Action on preliminary and final PUD site plan approval? 6. 98..14 ASHGROVE INN: (387 Church Street). - Application for site plan for parking lot improvements for a restaurant. - Variances granted by ZBA on February 25, 1998 - POLICY ISSUES: - Parking layout plan - Plan removed existing parking along Church Street and add parking on west side of structure. - Should there be a sidewalk system along the frontage of all -parking spaces? - Clarify that all parking is -to be paved? Is applicant interested. in proposing a phasing plan for the site improvements? - Driveways: - Does -site need two driveways? - The eastern one lines up with Kirby Road. The western one provide contains access easement to neighboring property. Clarify purpose and function.•. of ..that easement.. Does paved area have to be provided to the property line for this easement? - The Fire Department has submitted letter stating they would like to have two entrances. - Proposed driveway widths are 65 feet wide. City standard is 24 feet wide but this is a State road. Can 65 foot width be justified? Can the minimum State standard of 30 feet be used? Reduce both driveways? - Drainage: - Applicant proposes no curbing and only two drywells for this site. Is this.acceptable? - Will there be • any ,increased discharge off on neighboring property? - Grading plan is not in enough detail to show how drainage will work. - Drywells are not connected and. there is not- point . discharge proposed. Is this acceptable? - Should they be interconnected? - Should there be a point discharge? - Should there be a plugged overflow discharge to State ROW? - Clarify how roof drainage will be handled? 12 Cogan, Patrick August 4, 2021 Page 7 of 10 EXHIBIT C Planning Board Meeting Minutes — 04/01/98 Law Office of M. Elizabeth Coreno, Esq. P.C. 63 Putnam Street, Suite 202 Saratoga Springs, New York 12866 (518) 421-1366 ti I City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Meeting Minutes Wednesday x April l r 1998 expensive. Hal Gerow said the applicant would not have a problem complying wi-th the technical issues as listed on the Board's agenda notes. Lorraine Tharp asked for comments from the audience. No one spoke. Lorraine Tharp noted the following comments from other departments: - DPS comments: "Fire Department: Please note previous concerns. Also this access configuration is bound to be somewhat compromised by heavy snowfall. It is not unusual for these vehicle access roads to be reduced by half during normal winter plowing. I recommend snow removal. 20l_ice Department: Concern with increased traffic for drop-off/pick-up of children. How many children per day, plus other cars at medical offices? Traffic Maintenance: Same as Police Department concerns." - DPW comments: "It must be made clear that the city is not responsible for storm water detention basin. My question is after all the lots are sold who is responsible? Need to know water usage to establish tapping fee." Hal Gerow said they will work with Utilities. Norman Fox moved and Eleanor Mullaney seconded a motion to issue a SEAR negative declaration. Ayes all. Wallace Allerdice moved and Clark Brink seconded a motion to issue an approval of the site plan contingent on the items agreed to �r�tg-=t�-re--1djscussion. Ayes all. This is an application for PUD site plan review for 18 lodging units in Zone AA of the Interlaken Planned Unit Development District. Michael Ingersoll, landscape architect, appeared representing the applicant. Also, in attendance were Steve Sullivan, applicant, and George Olsen, architect. Steve Sullivan said the property was bought to develop into an Inn 12 City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Meeting Minutes Nednesdav,. Mri1 1 1998 and restaurant. They are looking at late July or early August to complete the first phase of the Inn. Michael Ingersoll addressed the following policy issues as listed in the Board's agenda notes: 1. Review of overall plan for the site: Michael Ingersoll said the existing building is used as a restaurant with a gravel driveway and parking lot. The applicant is looking to construct out buildings with additional Inn rooms later on. Michael Ingersoll said the applicant is proposing to develop right now the back half of the existing building with 18 rooms, later there would be out buildings like townhouses. These would be residential in scale, not commercial looking. The applicant is only placing on the plans what they will be doing now. Therefore, the layout of the overall plan will not be done right now and will not be shown of the official submitted PUD site plan for the 18 rooms. Lorraine Tharp said the issue of building future rooms on steep slopes will need to be addressed when the applicant returns for PUD site plan review in the future. Michael Ingersoll referred to site plan showing a new driveway into the site and reconfiguring the existing driveway. This driveway would go around the back to the rooms and check in area. Michael Ingersoll feels that it complies with the original PUD. Geoff Bornemann noted that the original PUD documents indicate the 6.73 acre Zone AA could be developed into a 165 seat restaurant and lounge of approximately 15,000 square feet, 54 room Inn of approximately 25,000 square feet, 6,000 sq ft. of neighborhood retail and 6,000 sq. ft. for office and retail use and parking for 230 cars. There are also some later documents which indicated there could be a 300 seat restaurant. The applicant's master plan appears to call for a 50 room Inn (not 54 rooms), an 18,720 sq. ft. restaurant with 300 seats (not a 15,000 sq. ft. restaurant with 165 seats, total 13 f { City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Meeting Minutes Wednesday April 1, 1998 parking for 150 cars (not 230 spaces), no retail and no offices. George Olsen spoke on the history of the building code and seating. Currently there is seating for 300 in the restaurant. They are only seeking 300 seats in this proposal. George Olson said that the Building Inspector has given the applicant a letter saying the restaurant will be in compliance with zoning and building if some minor improvements were made. Based upon this letter, the Board concluded that the applicant's current proposal is in compliance with the PUD intent. Geoff Bornemann noted that the boundaries of the PUD in this area appear to have been revised without City Council action. The size of site has grown from 6.73 acres to 9.7 acres. Also it needs to be clarified if there are two tax parcels involved (as shown on plans) or one (as shown on tax map) . Mike Ingersoll they would clarify this but he felt the new boundaries had been approved by the City Council. 2. Outdoor seating: Michael Ingersoll said they plan to have �- about 30-50 seats in the outside area. He noted that the zoning code does not allow them to go over 50% of the number of seats inside seating. Their numbers are less than 50%. 3. Area and bulk standards: Geoff Bornemann noted that the original PUD documents did not have any setback or height requirements for zone AA. Michael Ingersoll said they are proposing a 30 foot setback between zone AA. Clark Brink said he would like to see more buffering to Interlaken. The applicant said they could do 50 feet where tree line is on the south side and 30 feet on the west side. The Board agreed. The Board said it did not have a problem with the current parking being about 25 feet from front property line and with the applicant proposing to have a 10 foot setback front yard parking. 4. Parking demand and layout: Mike Ingersoll said that the parking demand does not need to include outside seating and the Board agreed. The Board did not have any problem with the proposed parking 14 City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Meeting Minutes Wednesday, Anri1 1. 1998 ..layout with setbacks. Michael Ingersoll referring to the 12 feet width of proposed turnaround on north side of building that it is a tight squeeze but they can provide an area to pull off to allow a car to get around a parked car. Lorraine Tharp said this was acceptable to the board. The applicant agreed to place handicapped parking near the north entrance for the Inn. 5. Front access road: Michael Ingersoll feels they do not need the existing gravel area in front of building but the Fire Department might want to use it. Michael Ingersoll said they would work with the Fire Department and give them whatever they want. If the Fire Department does not want the area the applicant will return it to grass. The Board agreed with this. 6. Water: Geoff Bornemann noted that the existing structure appears to be connected to Interlaken Water System via an unidentified sized main. Location of this service is not shown. Michael Ingersoll said they have done an analysis of the fire flow needs of the building. The have asked the engineers from the Interlaken Water Company to provide them with data on the availability of pressure in the water system. That information is not yet available. This will be subject to the Fire Department review. If there is not enough pressure they can hook up to the nearby City water. They do not want to do this if not necessary because the cost would be $35,000. They would have to bore under Union Avenue to access the city water but will do this if necessary. There are 2 existing hydrants in the parking lot. Clark Brink -said he would like another hydrant over by the Inn, George Olsen said they would place another hydrant near the Inn. Mike Ingersoll said they would resolve all these issues with the Fire Department. 7. Drainage: Mike Ingersoll said they will revise the drainage system so that the on -site drywells are connected together by piping. The line will discharge to a point at the base of the slope. 15 City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Meeting Minutes kJadnesday, April 1, 1998 Michael Ingersoll said the roof drainage will be handled by sheet flow to the parking lot. Michael Ingersoll said that he does not think that any of the parking lot along the western or northern side of building need curbing to prevent runoff down the slope. He feels this would be addressed adequately by sloping the parking lots and he will add additional spot grades to provide additional grading to direct the flows. Michael Ingersoll said he was sure the that driveway entrance would be adequately drained to go over the existing swales. 8. Lighting: Michael Ingersoll said they were trying not to over light the parking lot. He agreed to add additional lighting in the drop off area for the Inn and along the entrance drive. The light fixtures to be used will be the same as those used in Interlaken zone A. They will add these changes on the plans. 9. Landscaping: Michael Ingersoll said they feel there is adequate planting along the Union Avenue frontage. Clark Brink said that the landscaping along Union Avenue should be increased. Steve Sullivan said the landscaping would be phased. Michael Ingersoll proposed 4 - 5 sugar maples for now. They would start at the top of the slope. The Board agreed. 10. Sidewalks: Mike Ingersoll said they do not want to install a sidewalk from the restaurant door to intersection of Union Avenue and Dyer Switch Road. They would be willing to work with Interlaken Zone A residences regarding a sidewalk from their development to the restaurant. The Board agreed. 11. Traffic impacts: Lorraine Tharp said the board would ask the applicant to participate in NYS DOT's traffic mitigation fee program on the 18 new rooms only if it wasn't too much money. This is part of the SEQR review process. Geoff Bornemann said that DOT calculates the amount which goes into escrow. The applicant would receive funds back after 5 years if not needed. Recently all other Interlaken projects (zone C and BB) have participated. The applicant agreed. 16 City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board MeetingMinutes notes 12. -Phasing plan: Mike Ingersoll said the applicant was dealing with a pre-existing non -conforming site (the unpaved parking lot). The were willing to bring it all into compliance, but would like to do it in phases. He said it would cost $50,000 to do the parking lot. They are on a tight budget now and wanted to do the phasing. Lorraine Tharp said the board felt that the driveway needed to be taken care of immediately. Norman Fox said to do the driveway first and leave the parking lot until later.- Lorraine Tharp said to do the driveway in and around the front and the back of the building. The Board mandated immediately that all handicapped parking should be paved. The driveway will be paved all the way to the Inn entrance and trees will be planted along Union Ave. The board said that Phase I would be tied to the certificate of occupancy for the 18 room Inn, that'Phase II did not need to be complete for a certificate of occupancy. 13. Letter of credit: The cost estimate for letter of credit was originally $14,884 for phase 1 and $ 13,259 for phase 2. Based upon the changes made the figures will be revised and submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval. The Board and the applicant set the expiration date for phase lA for June 30, 1999.. The expiration date for phase 1B would be June 30, 2000. Michael Ingersoll said they would have no problem complying with all the technical issues as listed in the Board's agenda notes. Lorraine Tharp asked for comments from the audience: Bob Howard, with Tomsargo Group, 88 Circular Street, said this project will help his business (the pending new golf course). He thinks this project is a great idea. The applicant is a good person and very community oriented. Lorraine Tharp noted the comments from the following department: DPS comments; "Concerned with water pressure and supply for fire protection." and DPW comments;: "It is my belief that this project can not be serviced by Interlaken Water system. Only alternative is 17 1 ' City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Meeting Minutes Wednesday.Ap ir. 1 1, 19 9,a that project be connected to city water." The County Planning Board referral was "No significant countywide or intercommunity impact." William McTygue said this project should be a success because the area is growing. He thinks the City will eventually buy the Interlaken water system. He asked what would happen then? Geoff Bornemann said the plans have in the past included a provision to connect the private water system with the city system. William McTygue asked who would own the hydrants. Geoff Bornemann said he was not sure, but in most cases they are privately owned, but publicly inspected. The applicant has been warned that the hydrants could end up being their responsibility. Eleanor Mullaney moved and William McTygue seconded a motion to authorize the chair to issue a SEQR negative declaration. Ayes all. Wallace_Allerdice moved and Clark Brink seconded the motion to approve PUD site plan approval contingent upon the items agreed to during the discussion. Ayes all. 98.14 ASHGR= INN: ( 3 87 Church Street) This is an application for site plan for parking lot improvements for a restaurant. Use and area variances were granted by ZBA on February 25, 1998. George Yasenchak, engineer, and Dan Jewett, applicant, appeared before the Board. George Yasenchak said that the Ash Grove has existed for 50 - 60 years but closed a few years ago. The property lost the non- conforming use status, but the ZBA recently granted a use variance. He announced that the applicant is making. the following changes from the submitted site plan: 1) moving the trash container to the northwest corner of the property; 2) at the front entrance of the building the last two parking spaces will be moved to the side of the building; and, 3) putting the front door back on the building. George Yasenchak addressed. the following policy issues as listed on Cogan, Patrick August 4, 2021 Page 8 of 10 EXHIBIT D Planning Board Agenda Notes — December 2001 Law Office of M. Elizabeth Coreno, Esq. P.C. 63 Putnam Street, Suite 202 Saratoga Springs, New York 12866 (518) 421-1366 Saratoga Springs Planning Board -- Agenda Nores for December 12, 2001 MeetYng -- Page 7 of 13 COMMNTS FROM THE AUDIENCE: DPS comments: No concems." DPW comments: No comments received. Office he City En&cer: "Approve LoC reduction to $42,740.7� Application ibeof $200 has been paid. Action on request &kreduce the $63,967 to $42, date from Dec=ber X. 2001..to June 30, 2002� 2. 001.86 MCNEARY PROPS : 230ew Street .15 and to extend the expiration Application for a 2 lot subdivision 't . arehouse Districi. Applicant has requested a con tz til the January 9, 2002 meeting. Action on request to continu a public he g to the January 9, 2002 meeting. 3. 01.87 SELF-STORAGE'ACILI'I`'i: 23 New - Application f site plan review for 40,000 square of of new self -storage warebousin in a Warehouse District. - ,A.pplic as requested a continuation to the January 9, 2002 meeting. - Actio bequest to continue to the January 9, 2002 meetirig. . 4. 0_1.95 LONGFELLOWS — PRASE II`„ 500 Union Avenue Application for PUD site plan approval for a 75-seat restaurant addition and 32 lodging `4001ns in Zone AA of the Interlaken Planned Unit Development District. POLICY ISSUES: Required approvals: Applicant needs PUD site plan review from the Planning Board and architectural review from the DRC. The applicant will be on. the DRC agenda on 12/13/01 for architectural review of the first phase of this project.) - Proposed uses: a - In 1998 the Planning Board make an interpretation that the Interlaken PUD ordinance documents allows a restaurant with up to 360 seats an in with up to 50 •-- MOMS. - The proposed addition brings the restaurant to 360 seats and the inn to 50 room s. rnw►�w. Clarify if any outside seating is proposed. - h,o i �OV-o"a�l Clarify if there will be any business meeting rooms. vie; Area, and bulk schedule: �--� --• �•-�; l� �o:�or�7�FCirJ CITY ENGINEER r/I PAGE 03 Saratoga Springs ,Planning Board—,Igenda ]rotes for December 12, 2001 Meeting — Page 8 of 13 The original PT -ID documents did not have any setback or height requirements for zone A.A. Are those acc SB - Enhances: proposed eptable to the Planning Board? Clax* where the main building entrances are for the restaurant, banquet :facilities and inn' Are they different locations? b-Xow will people be directed to the correct entrance? Parking: - Should some handicapped parking Spaces be located closer the entrance of the lodging addition? Clarify that height of connecting bridge will provide at least 14 Feet of clearance fox vehicle passing under it. Slope stability. - A geotechnieal report has been prepared. Recotnmmdation of that re ort sho included on the plans. p uid be Should the applicant add a construction, limit line for disturbance on the slope and 1equire Planning Board action for MY disturbance below the Vie? -- - Should there be a ,limit on bow much vegetation the applicant will be allowed to cut LUC 5 e in-creatP- Utilities: ? Should hydrant near the entrance to the new addition be moved further awayo e bUlld�fobetter access C f t. he Fire Z3epattincnt? __..__..._,.._�_�....r.�..__ �...__...._.�. Clarlfy that the applicant has the xiht to increase the sanitary PR� across Zone A of Interlaken. g Y sewer flow in the - heze an adequate buffer betsueer� the arkin lot � Is the proposed chain link fenced tom, g and the residences in Zone A? - �'xaal: ASP enclosure acceptable? . �` Discuss status of negotiations with adjacent property owner for access ' brail construction. rights for the Will trail construction require DEC wetland permit? .�.. uerkti - Should there be an easement for the nsexisting trail that crosses this prop ?None is shown on the pla. 1W, - Should there be a pedestrian path along the frontage of this property? Due to the increased volume of pedestrian traffic in the neighborhood; the Board .o.w • required the East Ridge development to install a "meandering" asphalt path along Crescent Avenue. 5 foot wide Phasing plan: Discuss timing for the two phases. Should there be a "sunset" provision on the site Plan approval for each of the phases? Provide a better identtcation of who improvements will be made during what phase, g Traffic mitigation fee: M Cogan, Patrick August 4, 2021 Page 9 of 10 EXHIBIT E Planning Board Minutes — December 2001 Law Office of M. Elizabeth Coreno, Esq. P.C. 63 Putnam Street, Suite 202 Saratoga Springs, New York 12866 (518) 421-1366 Nancy Butcher moved, and Robert Bristol seconded the motion to approve the request to reduce the cash escrow amount from $63, 967 to'* $42, 720.75 and to extend the expiration date from December 31, 2001 to December 31, 2002. Ayes all. 01.86 MCNEARY PROPERTY: 23 New Street This is an application for a 2 lot subdivision in a Warehouse District. Geoff Bomemann reported that the applicant has requested a continuation until the January 9, 2002 meeting. The Board agreed to continue the public hearing to the January 9, 2002 meeting. 01.87 SELF -STORAGE FACILITY: 23 New Street This is an application for site plan review for 40,000 square foot of new self -storage warehousing in a Warehouse District. Geoff Bomemann reported that the applicant has requested a continuation to the January 9, 2002 meeting. The Board agreed to continue to the January 9, 2002 meeting. 01.95 LONGFELLOWS — PHASE 11: 500 Union Avenue This is an application for PUD site plan approval for a 75-seat restaurant addition and 32 lodging rooms in Zone AA of the Interlaken Planned Unit Development District. Steve. Sullivan, applicant, Mike Ingersoll, landscape architect, and George Olsen, architect, appeared before the Board. Required approvals: Mike Ingersoll stated that the applicant needs PUD site plan review from the Planning Board and architectural review from the DRC. He also stated that the applicant is on the DRC's December 13, 2001 agenda for architectural review of the first phase of this project. Proposed uses: Mike Ingersoll stated that in 1998 the Planning Board made an interpretation that the Interlaken PUD ordinance documents allows a restaurant with up to 360 seats an inn with up to 50 rooms. The proposed addition brings the restaurant to 360 seats and the inn to 50 rooms. Mike Ingersoll said that currently, there are 18 rooms in the inn and breakfast service is available to those rooms. Outside seating: Mike Ingersoll said that there will be an outdoor deck for social gatherings, but there will not be any outdoor dining. Conferences: Mike Ingersoll said that there will not be conferences held at the inn or in the restaurant. He also said that there always have been small business meeting held in the restaurant, and some in their separate rooms in the restaurant, but never any large conferences. Area and bulk schedule: Mike Ingersoll said that the original PLTD documents did not have any setback or height requirements for Zone AA. He said that the are planning a 50 foot setback from Interlaken Zone A, and a 30 foot buffer on the northwest corner of the property by keeping the natural buffer. Code issues: George Olsen stated that Steve Sullivan purchased the building and property in 1996, and at that time there were many code violations that had to be corrected. At this time there are wooden stairs that must be removed. He explained that the proposed addition would also clean up access issues. Non-combustible construction will be used. Entrances: George Olsen said that the entrance lobby will have an elevator which will go to the 2nd and 3rd floors. The current entrance will remain, and the proposed 2nd entrance will be for functions such as weddings, etc. He said he will add directional signage for each entrance on the plans. He said that the rear outdoor deck will hold a maximum of 50 people, and was planned there because of the nice view. George Olsen said that they are continuing the architectural character of the original buildings. Parking: Mike Ingersoll stated that some of the handicapped parking spaces should be located closer the entrance of the lodging addition and he agreed to relocate them. Bridge height: Mike Ingersoll said that the height of connecting bridge will provide almost 15 feet of clearance for vehicles (including fire tucks) passing under it. Slope stability: Mike Ingersoll stated that a geotechnical report has been prepared, and he will include the report recommendations on the plans. He also said that he will establish a construction limit line for disturbance on the slope. Mike Ingersoll said that no more than 25% of the trees under 12 feet will be removed. The only exception will be dead and diseased trees. Mike Ingersoll said that the presence of trees will help to stabilize the slope and will include a note on the plan with these proposed restrictions. Utilities: Mike Ingersoll said that the hydrant near the entrance to the new addition will be moved further away from the building for better access for the Fire Department. Mike Ingersoll said that there have been some recent concerns about who maintains the sanitary sewer lines in Interlaken Zone A. Currently the sanitary sewer flow from Longfellows goes through the Interlaken Zone A piping. He said the applicant is still in the process of negotiating a formal agreement with Interlaken Zone A to continue to use their piping. He also said that an alternative plan would be that they could hook up with the manhole across the street, although they would prefer not to. The Board agreed that the final solution for the sanitary sewer Iine connection for both phase I and R. would be contingent upon the Chair's approval of either of the options proposed. Dumpster: Mike Ingersoll said they are proposing a chain link fence with green slates around the dumpster. The Board asked for a more attractive enclosure. Steve Sullivan stated that he would be willing to construct a cinderblock enclosure that is painted green with wood covering it. He also said that the garbage is picked up 3 ' days a week at 8:00 a.m. The Board agreed that they prefer the cinderblock enclosure for the dumpster. Trail: Mike Ingersoll said that they do have a letter from the golf course regarding the access rights for the trail construction. He also said that they may be able to avoid the D.E.C. wetland issue with culverts, and he. will add these items in the notes on the plans. Mike Ingersoll said that the applicant will also grant an easement for the existing trail that crosses this property. Paths/sidewalks: Mike Ingersoll said that a sidewalk would normally go into the DOT right of way, where there is extensive drainage and they are hoping not to have to obtain a permit. He said that they would prefer to install a meandering path from the driveway. to the building entrance along most of the frontage of this property. The Board favored this alternative location for a sidewalk Phasing plan: Mike Ingersoll stated that the first phase of the project is for the addition, which will take 1 year. The second phase of the project is for the inn, which will take 2 years. He said that they expect Phase I will be started during the winter, and Phase II will start in the fall of 2002. Lighting: Mike Ingersoll said the lighting throughout the parking lot will be the same on 12 foot high poles. Traffic mitigation fee: Lorraine Tharp noted that in 1998 the applicant agreed to contribute $160 per lodging room for the NYS DOT traffic mitigation fee. The fee for the additional 32 rooms would $51,120 (32 X $160/room). The applicant agreed to place money in escrow for this traffic mitigation fee with the same conditions. Letter of credit: Mike Ingersoll stated that the amount- of .�.est�29imate: Phase I = $57947.63 (total cost of site work = $23,1790) and Phase II $37,890.00. total cost of site work = $151, 560). The Board noted that the * City Engineer- s` a�rovai for the final figure will be required. The Board set the expiration date for Phase I for December 31, 2002 and the expiration date for Phase II for December 31, 2003. The applicant agreed to comply with all technical issues as listed on the agenda notes. Lorraine Tharp asked if anyone from the audience wished to comment on this project. Brian Finneran, 32 Sicada Drive, stated that on Sunday the residents of Interlaken were invited to Longfellows for a presentation of their- plan and they were mostly pleased with everything they heard. He said that this was the first that the homeowners knew of this. Brian Finneran said that one of his concerns is that there are no assurances about noise, lighting, and impact. He said that there is more activity with growth. He also said that the buffer between Interlaken and Longfellows could be increased. Lorraine Tharp asked if the buffer could be improved. Mike Ingersoll said that the PUD was originally approved with no setbacks and that they are committed to a minimal amount of tree removal. He mentioned several years ago another Planning Board applicant (the Methodist Church on 5a' Avenue) set aside a pool of money for additional plantings, and suggested that Longfellows may be willing to do the same. Mike Ingersoll pointed out that the closest houses are 100 feet away and that the applicant has made a good faith effort for a buffer. Steve Sullivan said that he is happy to work with the neighbors and that he is taking their concerns into account. Mike Ingersoll pointed out that the existing buffer could provide 30 additional parking spaces for Longfellows. Robert Bristol said that a money pool is a good idea and it allows for time to see where additional trees would be beneficial. Nancy Butcher said that most of the impact would be from Phase H, and all the details can be worked out while Phase I is being completed. The Board agreed that the final planting plan for this buffer would contingent upon the Chair's approval. Brian Finneran also said that the other night he and a few of the residents took a walk and noticed two lights on a tree in the parking lot that glared towards Interlaken. He said that there was a time when two trailers were parked in the parking lot and were very visible to Interlaken. Mike Ingersoll said that the glaring lights will be removed and a note to this effect will be added to the plans Brian Finneran thanked the Board and Steve Sullivan for working with the homeowners during the planning of this project. Lorraine Tharp noted the following comments from the City departments: DPS comments: "Emergency response to the proposed area is 8+ minutes and is excessive. I recommend consideration of an additional fire station east of Rte. 87. I would request fire -flow calculations and a hydrant located within 500 feet. Also of concerns is accessibility and maneuverability of apparatus. Police Department: No comments. Traffic Maintenance: No comments." DPW comments: No comments received. Saratoga County Planning Board referral: Pending The traffic mitigation fee of $5.120 must be paid before the signing of the site plan. Lorraine Tharp noted that City Council issued a negative declaration for the PUD back in 1982. Lou Schneider moved, and Robert Bristol seconded the motion for approval of the PUD site plan contingent upon the items agreed to during the discussion. All in favor. 01.84 BANK DRIVE-THRU FACILITY: 44 Congress Street This is an application for special use permit for a bank drive-thru facility in the Downtown Business District. This project is continued from the November 14, 2001 meeting. Anew submittal was made on December 6, 2001. Saratoga Springs Planning Board — Agenda Notes for December 1 Z, 200] Meeting —Page 9 of 13 - In 1998 the applicant agreed to contribute $160 per lodging room for the NYS DOT traffic mitigation fee. The fee for the additional 32 rooms would $5,120 (32 X $160/room). Letter of credit: - Amount of cost estimate: Phase I = $5,947.63 (total cost of site work = $23,790) and Phase 11= $37,890.00 (total cost of site work = $151,560) - City Engineer's review for the final figure will be required. - Expiration dates for Phase I and Phase H? TECHNICAL ISSUES: - Correct overprinting on all plans. - Add bearing and distances to all boundary lines. - Verify that all on -site hydrants are operational. - Add building dimensions and height. - Make . minor revisions to stormwater management report as per City Engineer's comment. - Add recommendations from the geotechnical report to the plans. COMMENTS FROM TIC AUDIENCE: DPS comments: "Emergency response to the proposed area is 8+ minutes and is excessive. I recommend consideration of an additional fire station east of Rte. 87. I would request fireflow calculations and a hydrant located within 500 feet. Also of concerns is i accessibility and maneuverability of apparatus. Police Department: No comments. Traffic Maintenance: No comments." DPW comments: No comments received. Saratoga County Planning Board referral: Pending Application fee of $1,100 has been paid. Traffic mitigation fee of $5,120 is due. SERQ.determination issued by City Council in 1982. Action on PUD on site plan. 8. 01.84 BANK DRIVE-THRU FACILITY: 44 Congress Street Application for special use permit for a bank drive-thru facility in the .Downtown Business District. Project is continued from. the November 14, 2001 meeting. New submittal was made on December 6, 2001. POLICY ISSUES: Proposed project will involve issuance of a special use permit for the drive-in facilities and site plan review from the Planning Board. Architectural review from the DRC will also be required Cogan, Patrick August 4, 2021 Page 10 of 10 EXHIBIT F Redevelopment Sketch Plan 08/01 /21 Law Office of M. Elizabeth Coreno, Esq. P.C. 63 Putnam Street, Suite 202 Saratoga Springs, New York 12866 (518)421-1366 SITE STATISTICS I.r,PM�E,a, PROPOSED USES Eml+w rr.l. c�xosspso-xvEr�orwenxcavxlm none LEGEND �/ E E � �wnrrra.wrEoz.�ow.rti s+Vi E I.r o.r.w..orrw.<o E / vmws O O JJ 11 1 un pMA9 TBFRRVExxWS — _ Cd.YEMEvavEVEHv lO r 1 �— t �� - O invEEIEM 1 ! L� -1 Il NOTES Jf - - I C The LA GROUP Bonacio Conshotlian Sketch Plan SK-1